26 February 2013

On the ksnh::jur blog, we recently posted the first two articles of a series on the IP aspects of the fascinating new technology of 3D printing which, according to our perception, has the potential to raise totally new questions and pose new challenges to the IP system. I will continue in German, the language of the two articles:

21 February 2013

In this earlier posting I sketched the contradictory positions of general lawyer associations (e.g. CCBE) and more patent-related organisations (e.g. epi and CEIPI) as to the authorisation rights before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), back then called European and EU Patents Court (EEPC).

lawyers authorised to practise before a court of a Contracting Member State,

jurists authorised to practice in patent related matters before a court in a Contracting Member State,

European Patent Attorney having obtained the European Patent Litigation Certificate, and

European Patent Attorney having an appropriate qualification.

While no 1 relates to attorneys-at-law, there are some good reasons that no 2 may cover legally trained patent professionals who are authorised to only practice in patent related matters before a court of a Contracting Member State, such as e.g. German or British patent attorneys.

Further, no 3 relates to European Patent Attorneys according to Art 134 EPC having obtained the European Patent Litigation Certificate which may be obtained by attending a course similar to the Patent Litigation in Europe program of CEIPI in Strassbourg, while no 4 might relate to European Patent Attorneys having alternative qualifications such as an LL.M.degree in IP law or practical litigation expertise proved by a case book.

Bulgaria is expected to sign in the coming days once internal procedures have been completed. Poland and Spain did not sign the agreement.

While Poland has become increasingly critical about signing the agreement (see here and here) and Italy still opposes the Unitary Patent due to language issues, Spain still rejects the whole package.

To enter into force, the Unified Patent Court Agreement needs to be ratified by at least 13 of the 24 signing states, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and France as mandatory parties of the agreement.

Apparently, only 21 of the originally 25 EU member states that supported the establishment of a Unitary Patent by enhanced cooperation are prepared to sign, including the thee "mandatory" signers France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovenia are reported to have technical problems, whatever that might mean. But at least in the case of Poland, there appear to be also political problems that will likely prevent the country from signing the UPC agreement for many years.

The 22nd signer will be Italy, which nevertheless is still opposing the Unitary Patent together with Spain for language issues. The effect for Italy will be that a European Patent granted by the EPO will still have to be separately validated in Italy (and translated into Italian) to take effect in this country, but can be centrally enforced and attacked before the Unified Patent Court together with a possibly existing parallel Unitary Patent.

Further issues recently reported on ksnh::law include the issuance of a nearly-final version of the Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court, including some interesting observations as to the representation rights of patent attorneys before and the fully electronic procedure at the new court:

With the publication of the draft Rules of procedure, the main legal texts of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court system are now available in a (pre-)final form:

REGULATION (EU) No 1257/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection,

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements,

07 February 2013

Further to this recent posting on the Amendments in US patent law caused by the America Invents Act, by which I pointed to part 1 and part 2 of a series of three German postings on this subject on the ksnh::jur blog, I now can announce part 3 of the series, which relates to those important provisions that enter into force as early as March 16, 2013. For a short summary of this new posting, I again continue in German:

The content of this Weblog is maintained by myself and entirely reflects personal opinions. I try to keep the provided content as correct as possible. However, errors cannot be ruled out and I assume no liability for disadvantages which might result from the use of the content provided. Using this Weblog does neither constitute furnishing of legal advice nor does it establish a client/attorney relationship.